Dez Bryant made brilliant catch. Cowboys hosed

[beardown07]

Your confusing a running rule with a pass-catching rule. Even after contact, in the act of a catch, the player must maintain possession of the ball.

Look, the rule sucks. No one is going to argue this. But the call was, unfortunately, 100% correct.

I don't think its that cut and dry.

The rule is that he has to have possession and make a "football move". The third "lunge-step" should be considered a football move IMO, especially considering there was contact made before hitting the ground.


You basically are penalizing a player for making that extra effort.

Again, I am aware of the rule....and most would agree that it needs tweaking AGAIN! This is what happens when you feel the need to change the fucking rules every fucking offseason.

 

[gordontrue]

I don't think its that cut and dry.

The rule is that he has to have possession and make a "football move". The third "lunge-step" should be considered a football move IMO, especially considering there was contact made before hitting the ground.


You basically are penalizing a player for making that extra effort.

Again, I am aware of the rule....and most would agree that it needs tweaking AGAIN! This is what happens when you feel the need to change the fucking rules every fucking offseason.

 

[ATL96Steeler]

I'll argue that the rule doesn't sucks. It is a good rule.

It needs to be in there or else there becomes a gray area on possession that one ref could rule one way and another a different way on the same play. This rule keeps a subjective call out of the game. In fact that is why it was made in the first place.

Simple fact is if you want a catch, don't let the ground knock the ball loose from your hands.

At least you're arguing the right point here.

I don't like the rule, but it does remove gray area.

 

[Tharvot]

He was falling to the ground when making the catch. Which means he has to secure it through the entire act of falling to the ground. Just having control and getting two feet down in that situation is NOT possession. He has to control the football and not lose control of it if it hits the ground in that situation.

I know by the letter of the rule, it was incomplete. That doesn't mean that the rule itself is good or right.

Its really close. You could make the argument that as he came down, he lunged for the endzone and when the ball hit the ground it came out. By definition, lunging for the endzone is a "football move". If he had possession and makes a football move, then the play is dead once he contacts the ground and it is a completed catch.

On the flip side, the ball does move up his body a bit as he is coming down and taking steps, so you could rule that he did not have full possession as he was going to the ground and when he lunged and the ball made contact with the ground and came out, that necessitates an incomplete pass. I believe that is what they ruled in this case.

Its a 50-50 take IMO. I saw some replays that showed the ball moving a little in his grasp but it did seem that he had control of the ball before finally lunging towards the goal line. Either way its a difficult call to make, but the game wasn't won or lost on that call alone. The old saying is that you can't leave the game up to the refs to decide.

 

[gordontrue]

At least you're arguing the right point here.

I don't like the rule, but it does remove gray area.

By going way too fucking far into the black area

 

[Doublejive]

Who cares,Romo and the Cowboys had chances to win,they lost.

 

[gordontrue]

Who cares,Romo and the Cowboys had chances to win,they lost.

Some team winning or losing has nothing to do with whether a call was made correctly or whether a rule is stupid.


I couldn't care less if Dallas won or lost... but I see a stupid play that needs addressing.

 

[BoBlake]

I know by the letter of the rule, it was incomplete. That doesn't mean that the rule itself is good or right.

Its really close. You could make the argument that as he came down, he lunged for the endzone and when the ball hit the ground it came out. By definition, lunging for the endzone is a "football move". If he had possession and makes a football move, then the play is dead once he contacts the ground and it is a completed catch.

On the flip side, the ball does move up his body a bit as he is coming down and taking steps, so you could rule that he did not have full possession as he was going to the ground and when he lunged and the ball made contact with the ground and came out, that necessitates an incomplete pass. I believe that is what they ruled in this case.

Its a 50-50 take IMO. I saw some replays that showed the ball moving a little in his grasp but it did seem that he had control of the ball before finally lunging towards the goal line. Either way its a difficult call to make, but the game wasn't won or lost on that call alone. The old saying is that you can't leave the game up to the refs to decide.

I think it's the movement you're referring to that is the key factor here. Because of the 3 "falling steps" that he took, the ball wasn't in complete control, therefore he had to maintain possession throughout the contact with the ground.

The ball can hit the ground, he just can't let it bobble and bounce out of his hands afterward.

 

[gordontrue]

If you want a great product that produces great moments... incentivize endzone-stretching effort... don't penalize it.


This is where this play is different (and IMO worse) than the Calvin Johnson one.


If that's how that play is going to be called... Recievers should be coached to go to the ground carefully and to shut down any extra effort to get in the endzone. That's stupid and boring.

If a rule explains why something that 99 out of 100 people just saw isn't really what they saw... its a stupid rule.

 

[ducky]

I don't think its that cut and dry.

The rule is that he has to have possession and make a "football move". The third "lunge-step" should be considered a football move IMO, especially considering there was contact made before hitting the ground.

No. He is a falling WR making a catch. The rule is that he has to maintain control all the way through the process of falling down.

This isn't like catching the ball and tapping your feet at the boundries where possession can happen in a split second.. Possession is NOT established by two feet down and the ball. He has to maintain possession throughout the fall. Something he clearly does not do.

 

[Cincyfan78]

There's still a lot of gray because the refs have to determin 'football move' and what constitutes a 'football move'.

You can remove the gray are complete, and the gray area of 'football move' if you just make it as simple as catching a pass before going out of bounds.

Posession of ball...two feet on the ground (or knee, or elbow, etc...)...if that happens before the ball hits the ground, then it's a catch.

If you wanted to remove ALL ambiguity of the rule...this is how it should be.

 

[gordontrue]

If the point of the 'going to the ground' rule is to remove a gray area or ambiguity... its very clearly doing a horrible job as its been at the center of the 2 most controversial catch-no-catch plays in recent memory.

 

[R.J. MacReady]

From the rule

"If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he regains control"

My issue is this sequence of events did not take place on that catch.

 

[beardown07]

No. He is a falling WR making a catch. The rule is that he has to maintain control all the way through the process of falling down.

This isn't like catching the ball and tapping your feet at the boundries where possession can happen in a split second.. Possession is NOT established by two feet down and the ball. He has to maintain possession throughout the fall. Something he clearly does not do.

Well, I think the rule should be for diving catches, not jump balls, where the "fall" is due to contact, tangled feet, and and attempt to lunge into the endzone. Would the "fall" have occurred the same way, in the middle of the field, and it clearly being a first down? No. Because he would not have been lunging for the goalline.

That's allot of stuff happening AFTER the catch....None of them constitute a "football move"?


I despise the new NFL and I still go by the eyeball test. The vast majority of new rules instituted within the last 20 years are complete bullshit aimed at perceived safety measures taken, and to give the offense an advantage. All why making the game seem more subjective than ever??

 

[ducky]

There's still a lot of gray because the refs have to determin 'football move' and what constitutes a 'football move'.

You can remove the gray are complete, and the gray area of 'football move' if you just make it as simple as catching a pass before going out of bounds.

Posession of ball...two feet on the ground (or knee, or elbow, etc...)...if that happens before the ball hits the ground, then it's a catch.

If you wanted to remove ALL ambiguity of the rule...this is how it should be.

You couldn't play two weeks of NFL football before people demanded the rule to be changed back.

With your rules a WR could go up for a catch, put two hands on the ball, have his elbow touch the ground, and then the ball squirts loose the moment he hits the ground and rolls 20 feet away from him and it would technically be a catch.

 

[WizardHawk]

lol @ all of you saying this is going to be reviewed in the off season and changed. The Calvin Johnson one was worse and happened 4 years ago? The NFL is obviously happy with this rule as it is. This wasn't the first time it sucked and it probably won't be the last time it sucks. But deal with it. This is the modern NFL.

 

[BoBlake]

You couldn't play two weeks of NFL football before people demanded the rule to be changed back.

With your rules a WR could go up for a catch, put two hands on the ball, have his elbow touch the ground, and then the ball squirts loose the moment he hits the ground and rolls 20 feet away from him and it would technically be a catch.

This!!!

Good rule. Good call. Great game.

Go Hawks!

 

[gordontrue]

lol @ all of you saying this is going to be reviewed in the off season and changed. The Calvin Johnson one was worse and happened 4 years ago? The NFL is obviously happy with this rule as it is. This wasn't the first time it sucked and it probably won't be the last time it sucks. But deal with it. This is the modern NFL.

I disagree... he caught the ball and came down in the endzone.

Bryant caught the ball, lunged forward, and stretched out the ball in one hand in an effort to get the ball across the endzone.

 

[BoBlake]

I disagree... he caught the ball and came down in the endzone.

Bryant caught the ball, bobbled it, lunged forward, and stretched out the ball in one hand in an effort to get the ball across the endzone.

You missed a part, and it makes all the difference.

 

[beardown07]

How many steps constitute possession and a football move? He bobbled it for a sec at the peak of his jump, possessed it...one foot, two foot, dive.

Third action should be a football move. It changed his direction.


So, if hypothetically, he manages to take 4 steps, the 4th being a lunge, is that deemed possession and a football move?


I like how this is like determining traveling in basketball suddenly?